|
Nelson Mandingo posted:What was a superweapon or game changer of the medieval era? Not to hijack his thread, but I'll chip in with an answer and a question.  There's a concept called "technological determination" that looms over military history. For example, it's pretty common knowledge that muskets and pistols revolutionized warfare in the Early Modern Era, replacing basically all other weapons and leading to the line-and-volley tactics of the American Revolution, etc. Except that's not true at all. Guns were one part of a larger trend that began centuries before they were widely used. Technological determination is basically attributing massive change to a technology that didn't cause it. The longbow revolutionizing warfare is another example...it didn't really happen the way people think. If the longbow couldn't pierce plate armor reliably, there was no way it could stop the French in their tracks...so what did? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours: training. In broad terms, battles were fought by using the infantry and archers to pin the enemy infantry in place, then scare the everloving gently caress out of them with a charge of heavy cavalry. For centuries this worked. Pikes could certainly kill horses and unseat knights, but untrained levies lacked the discipline and training to tighten up and try to actually withstand the charge. When the cavalry hit home, they tended to do so against the enemy's backs as they ran which had obviously devastating effects and emphasized the dominance of cavalry over infantry. But when infantry actually began standing their ground, the started winning. One example is the Battle of Crecy (the mud is not a complete answer), but there are several others in the years that followed. Depending on where you stand in the active debate over the Military Revolution, the expansion of training may be credited to William of Orange and Gustavus Adolphus. Things like marching in step, smaller and more maneuverable formations, standardized uniforms, equipment, and weapons (including muskets and pistols) became common place. These well-trained armies led to a resurgence in siege warfare as open battles became unpredictable and dangerous. Gunpowder artillery made medieval castles obsolete and the trace italiene design emerged (often called a star-fort, but that's only part of the change). The manpower needed to encircle one of these large fortresses was immense, so armies grew. The unbelievable cost of these armies led to a completely new international banking system, and the difficulty in managing them required more complicated and professional government administration. Defenders realize that by having another army (relief army) attack the rear of besiegers they could end the siege and win; so besieging armies basically double to have their lines facing both directions (we're talking tens of thousands of men spread over a 10-20 mile line); the supporting changes continue. The modern nation state and banking (with modern loans, etc) arise. The whole military revolution debate is fascinating as hell, but in the most reductionist sense it all comes back to training. My question for the OP: with your focus on the medieval, do you plan on learning Latin or period French or anything? Edit: Good call by the OP, training and organization. Godholio fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jan 23, 2013 |
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Aggressive pricing posted:Cool thread, I was wondering if you could expand on something: Cavalry attacks weren't constant fights...they would charge, do the most damage possible as quickly as possible, then turn back and reform at a rally point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:which usually led to the horses getting blown and them getting all hosed to pieces. One missing word can really change the meaning of a statement. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I had a practical question about armor. Did soldiers and knights wear it throughout the day while they were on campaign, or did they carry it as baggage and put it on before the fight? If they were in a situation where their enemy was known to be in the vicinity, would they sleep in their armor if they suspected a surprise attack at dawn or something like that? Vegetius bitches quite a bit about how old-school Romans used to wear theirs all the time but that was abandoned by contemporary lazy punk kids who wouldn't get off his lawn as they marched.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Dr. Platypus posted:Though perhaps not as knowledgeable as some of the other posters in this thread, I recently finished writing my undergrad thesis about recently discovered relics from the reign of King Offa, and know a decent amount about Anglo-Saxon topics. If you guys have any questions about that period and place, I'd be happy to answer them. I used to live within walking distance of Sutton Hoo, and I wish I could go back there now that I'm old enough to appreciate it more than "woah dead guys!" 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Large, deep-hulled boats were better for the sea conditions found up north compared to Mediterranean-style galleys. A deep hull naturally lends itself to hauling people or cargo. I can't add much about early naval battles before cogs. The earliest major naval battle I know of is the Battle of Sluys in the fourteenth century between England and France.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Galleys were by no means "the pinnacle" of ship design, in large part because there was no singular pinnacle. Galleys tended to fare much more poorly outside the relatively calm waters of the Mediterranean than their deep-hulled counterparts, and were, as I recall, not as fast when operating under sail alone. This is true. The shallow hulls and sail designs of galleys were much more maneuverable, but the huge square-sailed and deep-hulled Atlantic ships were more stable at sea and faster. Using both sail designs on the Atlantic ships made for a decent compromise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any reason why a sword would have to be particularly sharp. You're not really slicing in any way that strength or angle won't make up for keenness. More like clubbing, which even if it doesn't get through the adversary's protective clothing is going to make an impact...with leather or cotton particularly, but even against metal armor (and against that, you're not getting through even with a razor edge). Or stabbing. Stabbing doesn't require an edge, just a point. Edit: V Yeah probably. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Never base your opinion on anything on the stuff you see in movies I'm not, I'm basing it on the multitude of times I've cut myself by being stupid. People were debating over the degree of sharpness. I'm saying razor sharp is unnecessary. Even abschneiden doesn't require that kind of edge, which as mentioned, will weaken a blade. I'm not saying you can get away with a flat edge. Edit: V Fair enough. Your post above lays it out pretty well. This isn't really my area, I'm much more familiar with Early Modern Era stuff, but find the medieval era interesting as hell so I mostly lurk in here. Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Now, unless you're saying that Scotland rose out of the sea in the 10th century, which would be a zesty theory full of gumption, Pleeeeease let it be this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
I've never even heard of it, but I've certainly got an opinion already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Shooting sticks still exist, so they never really 'evolved' into bipods, but integral bipods on weapons would only be useful when things like general marksmanship training came in, so post-American Civil War, basically. But this is beyond the scope of the thread! Bipods were used in SE Asia in the early modern era...I want to say 1600s or so. I don't know if they were integral or not, however.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I don't want to turn this into a wall of pictures This opinion is wrong. Just thought you should know.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:As a signifier of power? It's probably very very ancient. As a crown itself (like, what aspects make a crown), it goes back to the Achamaenid Empire. I think (not really sure) that it gained significance with medieval European monarchs when the Holy Roman Emperors began wearing them. Being crowned by the Pope was a pretty big deal. I'd hazard a guess that that is where its importance to European Monarchy comes from. English crowns dating to 200 BC or earlier are known, so I don't think the HRE can claim much credit even in Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I really gotta wonder why it seems like in most cultures the guy with the fanciest hat is in charge. When there's a bunch of people standing around, like an army, it's easier to see a fancy hat than nice boots or a lapel pin.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
It took Batman over 20 years to get a suit where he could turn his head, and that poo poo was made of rubber.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:The Old Testament stories relating to Joshua tell of a practice, for lack of better words, of keeping soldiers in a sort of "decompression camp" following a battle for a period of time before allowing them to rejoin the civilian population. I don't recall the exact chapter/verse though, it's been some time since I picked up a Bible. There are theories that we saw less problems with soldiers returning to the US in the world wars because they likewise had some "decompression time" while they waited for their trip home, and actually on the ships making the journey. I haven't seen any kind of study on how prevalent incidents were compared to now, and I don't know if they actually exist. I'd be surprised if not, but if that's the case then this whole theory is based on assumption, so there's my caveat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Welp, there goes my weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
There's even more to it than that...castles were built to hold territory. Often that territory was valuable for some reason...either it's crucial farmland, or it's a major trade hub, port, or crossroads, something like that. So the whole reason you're fighting is to take it, there is no "bypass the castle" plan because it's right in the middle of your goal. In the case of the Crusades, one of the Europeans' goals was to secure a pilgrimage route. That falls apart if your pilgrims have to sneak past a castle every couple of days. Someone also mentioned looting...this is also hugely important because in many cases this is literally how you paid your soldiers. They're not going to be happy about marching past that big walled paycheck.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It doesn't seem like the kind of technique you'd really have to export guys for, or that would be hard to come up with on your own. I also don't know that I've ever heard of this in any source--wouldn't it be defeated by having a simple overhang? I was under the impression most medieval (ie, pre-trace italienne) sieges were conducted by tossing flaming stuff and big rocks over the walls and smashing the town inside while starving them out. Trying to climb the wall...yikes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
veekie posted:Could be to supplement ladder assaults maybe? Establish an alternate route up the walls that weren't as easy to remove as ladders, and more portable than siege towers. Not as easy to remove? Tar, oil, water, rocks, arrows...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Griz posted:A few guys with rope ladders and hammers are less obvious and faster moving than a lot of guys hauling a giant ladder, and a rope nailed to the wall would be a lot harder to completely remove from above than a ladder where you can just shove it off with a long pole. I'm pouring pitch on your ropes and lighting you on fire. Enjoy. It's also really not that inconspicuous...the defenders are actively looking for people running at the walls, because engineers with explosives or fire are dangerous, and they don't move in large groups carrying ladders. Griz posted:
A lot of Europe doesn't have terrain like that. And I can't think of a single example, outside of movies, where someone gained control of a castle by doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
"Better" is pretty vague. Iron is more widespread than copper and tin, which means to make bronze you probably have to trade. Iron will rust, bronze won't...but iron will hold an edge longer. As far as hardness and durability, my understanding is it comes down to the level of metallurgy involved. An iron sword isn't going to just slice through a bronze one, but if it's well made and not chock full of impurities it can cause more damage than it takes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
For some reason the recent swordchat made me dig out my M1902 and try to narrow the date of manufacture a bit. I had it pegged between 1902 when the design was adopted and 1925, when the manufacturer (The MC Lilley & Co) changed names and logos. But on the back of the blade (which I never noticed somehow) is a stamp of "35" which I assume means 1935. So I guess I have a 1935-assembled sword that used a pre-1925 etched blade. I'm not going to disassemble it because it's actually peened together, not screwed. Not medieval, but inspired by the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 17:13
|
|